Saturday 30 March 2013

Why subsidies are bad.


by Ulrika Lomas, Tax-News.com, Brussels

29 March 2013

A new research paper, involving input from several International Monetary Fund departments, urges governments to pay attention to the substantial benefits that the worldwide reform of energy subsidies could have on nations' finances, income distribution, and the environment.
Subsidies amount to reverse taxation and are generally introduced with a view to protecting poorer consumers by keeping prices low. The IMF paper points out that energy subsidies are widely considered to be inefficient at protecting consumers in need, however, and should be better targeted.
Drawing on the report's findings, Carlo Cottarelli, Director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, said: "Subsidies are a problem in practically every country in the world. Even where countries impose taxes on energy, they’re rarely high enough to account for all of the adverse effects of excessive energy consumption, including on the environment. Based on a new database for 176 countries, we estimate that subsidies in 2011 amounted to USD1.9 trillion, the equivalent of about 2.5% of world GDP, or 8% of all government revenues."
"Since energy subsidies are pervasive and costly for governments to maintain, we see scope for reform not only in emerging market and developing countries, but also in advanced economies. The top three subsidizers across the world are the United States at USD502bn, China at USD279bn, and Russia at USD116bn. Clearly, when a country embarks on subsidy reform, there is a need to be mindful of possible adverse effects on the poor, and mitigating measures to protect the poor have to be built into the reform plan. This applies to all countries."
"Subsidies are expensive and ultimately must be paid by someone. This is of course true for any spending but there are several problems that are specific to energy subsidies. First, they are a very inefficient way of supporting the poor, as the rich consume more energy than the poor and therefore receive most of the benefits of the subsidies. In fact, on average, the richest 20% of households in low- and middle-income countries capture six times more in fuel subsidies than the poorest 20%. Governments, therefore, should make better use of the scarce ammunition in their fiscal arsenal for programs that more directly help the poor."
IMF First Deputy Managing Director David Lipton pointed out that the benefits of energy subsidy reform go beyond helping the poor. He noted the study's findings that eliminating pre-tax subsidies would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by about 1-2% which would, by itself, represent “a significant first step in reducing emissions by delivering about 15-30% of the Copenhagen Accord’s goal.” As for advanced economies, he noted that subsidies most often take the form of taxes that are too low to capture the true costs to society of energy use (tax subsidies), including pollution and road congestion. “Eliminating energy tax subsidies would deliver even more significant emissions reductions," said Lipton, slashing CO2 emissions by 4½ billion tons – a 13% reduction.

10 richest nation


30 Mar 2013 | Updated 09:25AM IST
Sensex 18835.8 131.2 Nifty 5682.6 41.0

The world's 10 richest nations
Font size: 
A- A+
The world's 10 richest nationsNew Delhi: How do you find out how rich or poor a country is? The answer is simple , we can get to know the financial status of a nation by calculating its GDP or Per Capita income.

So here we present a list of ten richest nations  in the world on the basis of GDP or Per Capita income.

You will be amazed to see here that Asian countries have crossed well-established European countries and super-power America in terms of annual economy growth. Here is the list:

1. United Arab Emirates


United Arab Emirates earn more or less 25 percent of its annual income through exporting oil and gas reserves.

The overall per capita income of UAE is roughly described as $47,500.

2. Switzerland


Switzerland, probably the most beautiful country on Earth, is also among the richest countries. Per capita gross domestic product of Switzerland is described as $41,950.

Total residents of Switzerland are around 7.8 million.


3. United States of America


United States of America have enjoyed the status of richest country in the world for years. Per capita income of United States of America is described as just around $46,000.

It is a center to the other rich nations of world.


4. Qatar


Qatar is widely recognized as the third largest country in the world in terms of holder of natural gas reserves. The population of Qatar is more or less 1.7 million people.

Forbes Magazine reported the per capita income of this top-ranked nation as $88,222.


5. Luxembourg


This very small country is widely recognized as the tax heaven across the globe. The per capita income of Luxembourg has been described by Forbes Magazine as $81,000.

The country is the home to half a million natives only.


6. Singapore

Singapore is a big business hub in the world and  has exceptionally well per capita income which is described as around $56,700.

It is also recognized as the manufacturing and technology hub across the world.


7. Norway


Norway, a beautiful country in terms of natural beauty. It is said that nearly half of exports of Norway depends on the petroleum industry.

Per capita income of this Scandinavian country is described as $52,000. It has around 5 million residents on its land.


8. Brunei


Located on the Borneo Island, Brunei has extensive natural reserves mostly consist on natural gas and petroleum fields.

Forbes Magazine’s research show that the per capita income of Brunei has reached just over $48,000. Total population of this Southeast Asian country is above 400,000.


9. Hong Kong


Hong Kong is worldwide recognized for its deep natural harbor as well as expansive skyline. Per capita income of Hong Kong is told as $45,944.

It is said about Hong Kong dollar that this currency has become one of the most traded currencies in the world.



10. Netherlands


The Netherlands is recognized as among the first few countries in the world which started governing their government matters through elected democratic parliament.

Netherlands has per capita income of $40,973. The country has 16.8 million people on its land. 
  


Share this story
  
Related Articles:
Trending Stories:

Tuesday 26 March 2013

Najib Razak, PM Malaysia adalah Bajau diSulawesi

JANGAN MANIPULASI BANGSA BAJAU! PDF Print E-mail
Written by Admin   
Monday, 28 February 2011 02:46

Oleh : PP SEMPORNA
MEMBACA Laporan Blog Sembiraiku mengenai penggunaan Istilah sebutan ‘Melayu Bajau’ yang hendak diperkenalkan oleh Pertubuhan NGO USBO, kami dari Komuniti Bajau Lcf-TSMP (Local Forum Komuniti Tun Sakaran Marine Park) amat terkilan dan tidak bersetuju semasa sekali penggunaan Istilah tersebut kerana ia akan menghilangkan Identiti dan Hak Bajau itu sendiri sebagai bangsa yang bertamaddun dan mempunyai Identiti sendiri yang wajar dikekalkan dengan Identiti Borneonisasi.
Bagi menyahut kekhuatiran masyarakat FB terhadap perkara ini, kami memohon supaya USBO jangan meneruskan rancangan asimilisasi atau adaptasi Bajau ke arah Melayu, hanya kerana kurang faham apa itu bangsa dan apa itu Identiti.
Sepatutnya Presiden USBO (United Sabah Bajau Organisation) mengkaji sedalam-dalamnya konsep penggunaan istilah itu sebelum menyeru dan meminta masyarakat Bajau di Negeri ini menggunakanya. Bajau adalah bangsa yang bertamadun sejak ratusan tahun dahulu, bahkan mendahului ketamadunan suku-suku lain di rantau ini sebelum Kerajaan Melayu Melaka.
Ketamaddunan Bajau Boleh Ditemui Di Filipina
Sekitar tahun 1380 masyarakat Bajau di Filipina Selatan sudah menerima kedatangan Islam ke situ yang dibawa oleh Syeikh Karimul Makhdum dan seterusnya kewujudan Masjid ertama bangsa Bajau di Pulau Simunul, Tawi Tawi itu di sana masih boleh dilihat sehingga ke hari ini sebagai bukti bahawa masyarakat Bajau menerima ketamadduan lebil awal berbanding bangsa lain. Sanggupkah kita padamkan sejarah Islam dan hubungannya dengan Bajau?
Perjuangan Bajau Boleh Ditemui Di Sabah Malaysia
Perjuangan Bangsa Bajau di Sabah yang dipimpin oleh para Ulama dan ahli sufi sejak era Magindora sebelum kedatangan British 1881 yang pernah direkodkan oleh penjajah British.
Bangsa Bajau adalah bangsa yang pertama pernah mengistiharkan perang menentang British kerana tidak mengiktirap ‘Perjanjian Pajak Gadai’ antara BNBC dan Sultan Sulu 1881, seterus menyerang penempatan British di Silam, Lahad Datu sekitar 1884 dan 1885 dari Kominiti Bajau Omadal, Semporna Sabah. Era ini membuktikan mereka adalah bangsa yang berjuang demi mempertahankan tanah air.
Seterusnya seorang anak Bajau campuran Suluk, Paduka Mat Salleh meneruskan pemberontakan terhadap British dengan menyerang Wilayah Pantai Barat Sabah. Sanggupkah kita memadamkan sejarah perjuangan Bangsa kita hanya kerana tujuan menyesuaikan diri mengejar pangkat dan projek?.
Kerajaan Bajau/Wajo Boleh Ditemui Di Indonesia
Kerajaan-kerajaan Bajau sebenarnya telah wujud sekian lama di rantau ini se awal 1300 sebelum Kesultanan Sulu sehinggalah kepada Kerajaan Bajau di Makassar, Kesultanan Gowa, Luwu, Bima dari Sulawesi dan Kerajaan Islam Asia Tenggara yang ada di Borneom Kalimantan seperti Kesultanan Kutai, Kesultanan Bulungan, Kesultanan Banjar termasuk Kesultanan Brunei yang pernah didominasi oleh Bangsa Bajau.
Saya ingin mengambil contoh Kerajaan Gowa di Makassar Sulawesi Selatan yang berasal dari Kerajaan suku Wajo/Bajo Pimpinan Arong Mattoa adalah salah satu bukti bahawa Ketamaddunan Bajau telah wujud sekian lama.
Bahkan Perdana Menteri kita hari ini Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak adalah keturunan langsung ke 19 Kesultanan Gowa, Makassar dari suku Wajo/Bajo Keturunan Sultan Hassanuddin yang telah merantau ke Pahang.
Karaeng Aji yang terpaksa meninggalkan tempat asalnya untuk belayar Pahang dengan bantuan pelayar-pelayar Bajau Balangingi kerana tidak setuju dengan perjanjian Bungaya di antara Kesultanan Gowa dan Aru Palaka, Raja Bugis Bone yang bersekongkol dengan belanda. Sanggupkah kita padamkan Sejarah Bajau yang pernah membantu keturunan PM kita?
Perdana Menteri Malaysia Anak Gowa Suku Bajo.
”Saya adalah Anak Gowa, Saya keturunan langsung Raja Gowa dan Hari ini saya balik ke Gowa Bukan untuk Merampas Takhta Raja Gowa, melainkan untuk menjalin semangat kekeluargaan yang sebenarnya tidak putus. Saya adalah Anak Gowa yang merantau 11 (sebelas) Generasi,” kata Perdana Menteri Malaysia, Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak semasa melawat Gowa, Sulawesi Selatan pada 15 Mei 2009.
Najib, sebagai anak Bajau Pertama rakyat Malaysia yang menjadi Perdana Menteri negara ini, mungkin terpaksa mengkaji semula salsilah keturunannya dari Bugis Makasar suku Wajo.
Proses asimilisasilah yang menyebabkan beliau mungkin kurang memahami susurgalur keturunan Bugisnya tetapi hakikatnya sejarah mengatakan bahawa beliau waris tulen Kerajaan Gowa dari Suku Wajo yang diasimilisasikan kepada Bugis.
Anak Gorontola Juga Mungkin Menjadi Presiden Indonesia Ke 3
Di Indonesia, Bacharuddin Jusuf atau lebih dikenali sebagai BJ Habibie yang lahir di Pare Pare, Makasar; ayahnya berasal dari Gorontola, Sulawesi Utara adalah dari kawasan wilayah Bao atau Wajo yang telah diasimilisasikan menjadi Bugis kerana proses yang sama.
Kehebatan pemimpin Bajau, seperti Tun Razak, BJ Habibie yang mencipta nama dalam arena politik antarabangsa telah diadaptasi oleh proses asimilasi kepada bangsa lain seperti Melayu dan Bugislah yang menyebabkan Bajau kehilangan identiti secara berterusan.
Bersediakah kita menulis sejarah baru nanti bahawa Tun Mustapha, Tun Sakaran, Tun Said Keruak, Datuk Salleh, Usu Sukam yang pernah menjadi Gabenor atau TYT serta Ketua Menteri Sabah ini adalah Keturuan Melayu suku Wajo?.
Martabat Bajau Terbela Di Sabah Malaysia
Satu-satunya negara yang menjadi peninggalan Bangsa bajau dan warisan Bangsa di atas muka bumi yang masih boleh kita banggakan adalah Sabah, Malaysia.
Sabah adalah negeri merdeka yang telah menjadi peninggalan warisan nenek moyang kita yang boleh menerima kita sebagai bangsa yang bermartabat dan mendapat kemerdekaan secara mutlak.
Di negara lain kita telah mengalami proses asimilasi sehingga bangsa kita menjadi bangsa yang tidak mempunyai identiti tulen terpaksa menumpang kasih kepada bangsa lain. Di Filipina, Bajau telah diadaptasi dengan budaya Suluk dan lebih teruk lagi generasi ini telah banyak murtad meninggalkan agamanya kerana tidak sanggup menjadi bangsa yang tiada identiti.
Di Indonesia khasnya, Sulawesi, kita sedia maklum Masyarakat Bugis hanya tertumpu di Selatan iaitu Kerajaan Bugis Bone Sulawesi Tenggara, sementara yang lain mempunyai kerajaan masing-masing yang terdiri dari pelbagai suku dan bangsa. Namun adaptasi dan asimilasi semua kerajaan Islam Sulawesi dan Kalimantan maka mereka telah menjadi kerajaan Bugis, walaupun hakikatnya mereka bukan suku Bugis.
Makasar, Luwu, Soppeng, Gowa telah menjadi Bugis Makasar, Bugis Luwu, Bugis Soppeng, Bugis Penderang, Bugis Banjar, Bugis Pontianak, Bugis Kutai, Bugis Tidong dan sebagainya.
Walhal semua tempat ini sebenarnya bukan suku Bugis dan mempunyai bangsa sendiri, ketamaddunan sendiri dan kerajaan sendiri serta mempunyai martabat masing- masing. Bolehkah kita terima apa yang berlaku di Kalimantan dan Sulawesi itu?
Perjuangan Masyarakat Bajau di Sabah adalah adalah titik tolak kepada kemerdekaan kita yang sebenar, perjuangan dan kebebasan idiologi kita yang harus kita pelihara dengan baik supaya dapat diwarisi oleh anak cucu kita pada masa akan datang.
Jesteru itu adalah wajar perjuangan USBO di Sabah memberikan penumpuan perjuangannya terhadap sejarah, budaya, sosial dan politik di negeri ini tanpa mengdaptasikannya kepada proses asimilasi ke dalam dunia Melayu.
Jika tidak sanggup berjuang untuk bangsa Bajau, bubarkan saja nama Bajau dari Pertubuhan USBO atau adakah kita akan menulis sejarah kita dan memberitahu generasi kita bahawa pada satu ketika Pemimpin Melayu Bajau dan Melayu Dusun, Melayu Brunei, Melayu Kadazan, Melayu Dayak, Melayu Iban, Melayu Tidung, Melayu Suluk dan lain lain adalah suku yang memperjuangkan kemerdekaan kita.
Alam Bajau amat indah dan cantik. Janganlah ia dicemari oleh konsep dan istilah yang bakal menghilangkan identitinya serta sejarah kemaddunannya. Peliharalah Bajau dan abadikanlah Bajau di tempat yang wajar dan bukan menumpang tuah dari bangsa lain.
Berpeganglah kita kepada Peribahasa Bajau yang pernah menjadi ungkapan nenek moyang kita, “Bang Alam Bissalah Alam Na Bangsa.”
Janganlah kita menjadi Bajau yang hiprokrit, pentingkan diri sendiri sehingga sanggup menjual maruah bangsa sendiri kepada orang lain kerana kepentingan serta agenda terbunyi kita sendiri seperti mana peribahasa Bajau :
“Kayu Kayu Langkau Nyana Nganjaga Nyana Nangkau”
Mohon jasa baik Presiden USBO, Datuk Seri Panglima Mohd Salleh Tun Said Keruak agar menghentikan ideologi yang kurang bijak dan bakal melenyapkan identiti bangsa Sabah dan teruskanlah perjuangan USBO untuk Bajau atau Datuk Seri wajar melepaskan jawatan Presiden Bajau itu untuk diamanahkan kepada pemimpin Bajau yang sayang kepada bangsanya.
Tulisan ini tidak membawa maksud dan memandang prejudis kepada Bangsa Melayu tetapi adalah sekadar mengingatkan Pemimpin Bajau supaya lebih bertanggungjawab terhadap bangsa.

 http://sabahkini.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6342:jangan-manipulasi-bangsa-bajau&catid=35:berita-sabah&Itemid=27

The author appears to know a lot but we need better references. I am very interested because I am also a Simunul, a branch among the Bajau tribes, originally from Simunul island. The correct term is bajau from Simunul island. I don't understand why my ancestors don't call our race as bajau but prefer to name it from its islands, but judging from the language, these bajaus are all related, distinguished only from their islands.

Bugis is Bajau in Javanese

p131, Thallassocracy, Bilcher Bala, quoting from
Makassar, J. Villiers, in J. Kathirithamby-Wells & J. Villiers, the south east asian port and polity, rise and demise, p. 145

...they were greater thieves than any in the world, and they are powerful and have many paraos [sic. Boat] ... They have fairs where they dispose of the merchandise they steal and sell the slaves they capture... The Javanese call them Bugis (Bujuus) [i.e. Bajau], and the Malays call them this and Celates.

Monday 25 March 2013

PTPTN solution: BN vs PR

http://youtu.be/XHvTFYOQtWY


Please note that the educational loan, called the PTPTN, is proven to be a problem to the nation. Both sides agree on this.

Solution proposed:

BN via Khairi:
Continue as it is. Hoping that the transformation initiatives made by BN will increase the purchasing power of graduates so that they can repay their loans.

What are the transformation initiatives?
Increase the productivity of villages? Build mega projects? Already been done before but had made Malaysia worse in terms of income of graduates and even in terms of per capita income growth. Malaysia's per capita income has not grown significantly compared to our neighbours Singapore and Brunei, that used to share the same economic parameters because they share currency and government administration styles.

The new things done was the giving of cash and other incentives to those earning less than RM3000, but these do not benefit graduates. Salary scale increases do help graduates in the government sector. However these probabaly contribute to the sudden increase in the per capita income of Malaysians from US7,000 in 2009 to US10,000 in 2012. These salary scale increases are policies that had been done before Mahathir and still being done by Singapore and Brunei.

It has proven to be effective in making Singapore the richest nation on earth by 2013 despite having no natural resources at all. By not continuing with the salary increases for government servants, Malaysian per capita income has stagnated. Tun Dr. Mahathir's method of giving economic stimulus by building mega projects had proven to be not effective in increasing the living standard of most Malaysians, and in fact had increased the income gap between the rich and poor.

Will the salaries of graduates in the commercial sector also increase? So far there is little evidence of it happening in Malaysia but in Singapore, the salaries of graduates had increased significantly compared to Malaysia. The commercial sectors must increase salaries in order to recruit the best graduates. It is still too early in Malaysia for us to see significant increases but if it can happen in Singapore, i.e. increase in salary of graduates in other non-government sectors, it can happen in Malaysia sooner or later.

Datuk Najib had implemented the salary increased just before the election. Will he continue with these salary increases even after the election? There is no indication that salary increases of government servants are part of the transformation strategy for a high-income economy. It was implemented just to please voters. Hopefully Datuk Najib will continue with this policy above that of mega projects, or even housing projects. Giving soft loans to buy houses as an economic incentive has led to the increase in the price of houses to the point that it is beyond the income ability of graduates, let alone the ability to repay their loans, but this is still on-going and will continue to bleed the Malaysian economy.

Khairi also proposed to support of private education for dropouts, but this will increase the financial burden of the nation. In summary, BN likes to commercialise education. Controlling the quality of education is more difficult as profiteering is more prominent.

PR via Rafizi:
Innovation is implementing the seemingly impossible. If it is so obvious, then it is not an innovation, just a development.

PR solution to the PTPTN problem is to provide free education up to the university level, by abolishing PTPTN. It shows that PR is innovative. I can't even imagine such a solution. It is against the normal flow of thinking but we should study its proposals first, before we reject it completely. After all, we are already in trouble, created by the PTPTN. It may be a political gimmick but it is done in good faith, similar to PTPTN. It is what voters want although it may not be good to the nation at first impression. Hopefully we will not become as bankrupt as Greece because we don't have anyone to bail us out, unlike Greece.

PR also proposes to build more universities instead of encouraging private enterprises to provide the education, although it allows high quality private universities to be given subsidies equivalent to the subsidy given to public universities.

Summary:
The difference is only in varius shades of public versus private education system. BN favours private education, whereas PR prefers public education. right versus left. BN is right, PR is left. Similar to the USA. Republican is right. Democrat is left.

Either way, it is alright. It is only in the implementation. No matter how good the idea is, if not implemented properly, it will lead to a disaster. The problem with BN is that it is riddled with cronyism and corruption that makes capitalism fail. PR is not yet proven to be similarly afflicted.

My opinion on this issue is that we should opt for th PR solution. Abolish PTPTN before it is too late. It will lead to less graduates but it is better than having disillusioned graduates that will not have jobs but burderned with debts. PR solution will actually lead to less graduates, but those graduates who are rejected should try to look for other professions or careers instead of becoming useless graduates. We may lose a few potential good graduates but our economy may not be able to accommodate them all at the moment. It is all a matter of timing.

Monday 18 March 2013

Crazy but true claims of the Filipinos

 http://www.mindanews.com/top-stories/2013/03/18/lawyer-of-sulu-sultans-heirs-malaysia-should-turn-over-sabah-but-adds-final-say-will-be-from-philippine-govt-body/

 By paying the cess money even when it is no longer required, we encouraged this unreasonable behaviour of the Filipinos. Sabah may have been under the administration of the Sulu Sultanate, but this Sultanate no longer exists so there is no need to pay any more. The heirs may inherit them but since there is no official Sultanate, there is no more heir.

 What is even more bizarre is that the Filipino labourers already allocate the buildings in Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan as belonging to them. This is confirmed by 2 people already. I never hear them personally but just now I manage to hear from the person who was told by these Filipinos. This is a very dangerous precedence.

 I also hear that many Filipinos also receive SMS to kill policemen only, but not the army. All UMS students are no longer allowed to wear any army or police uniforms outside the campus. 

 

Lawyer of Sulu Sultan’s heirs on Sabah: ‘final say’ from Philippine gov’t body

JOLO, Sulu (MindaNews/17 March) –  Claiming Malaysia acted in bad faith, the lawyer of the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu said Malaysia “must immediately turn over” Sabah to the heirs and the Philippine government and pay them “no less than 50% of its income from 1963 to the present.”
“In my considered opinion, since the Malaysia acted in bad faith in the occupation of British North Borneo-Sabah, Malaysia must immediately turn over its possession of the Sabah territory (to) the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and the Philippine government,” lawyer Ulka Ulama said in a three-page letter addressed to Malaysian Ambassador to the Philippines, Dato Mohd Zamri Mohd Kassim, dated and mailed via a commercial courier on Friday, March 15.
“Malaysia will have to wake up,” Ulama told MindaNews in his office here on Saturday, as he took out folders of his files on Sabah and pointed to a filing cabinet filled with Sabah-related documents.
Atty. Ulka Ulama leafs through the annexes to the March 15 letter he sent to the Malaysian Ambassador to Manila.  MindaNews photo by Carolyn O. Arguillas
Atty. Ulka Ulama leafs through the annexes to the March 15 letter he sent to the Malaysian Ambassador to Manila. MindaNews photo by Carolyn O. Arguillas
But Ulama, who has been receiving since 1975  the 5,000 Malaysian ringgit “annual customary payment”  of Malaysia on behalf of  the heirs,  acknowledged in his letter that the “final say” on Sabah will come from the Bipartisan Executive-Legislative Advisory Council on Sabah Issues (BELACS), a body first created 20 years ago under the Ramos administration and reconstituted under the Estrada and Arroyo administrations.
Ulama said President Benigno Simeon Aquino III should now appoint members of the BELACS “to solve the current Sabah issue.”
Ulama recommended that the private sector membership in BELACS will include former Senator Santanina Rasul,  himself “and Kiram.” The letter did not say which Kiram he was referring to. Asked which Kiram he was referring to, Ulama replied “We will get the approval from the Kiram after the BELACS approval to avoid any misunderstanding.”
Copies of the March 15 letter to Kassim were also mailed to President Aquino, Vice President Jejomar Binay, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., and Loretta Ann Rosales, chair of the Commission on Human Rights.
Ulama ended his letter with a prayer “that the Sabah crisis will be resolved as soon  as possible without bloodshed.”.
“61 terrorists shot dead”
In Sabah, Police Commissioner Datuk Hamza Taib announced on Saturday that Operasi Daulat (Operation Uphold Sovereignty), launched with aerial and ground attacks on March 5 to flush out the “Royal Security Forces” of  Sultan Jamalul Kiram III from Lahad Datu where they had holed up since February 12 until violence broke out on March 1, “will continue until all areas in the district are rid of the intruders from southern Philippines.”
Taib was quoted by the state-owned news agency, Bernama, as saying, “We will finish it (operation) as soon as possible” even as he “stressed that the security forces did not have a deadline for the operation.”
Bernama’s report said that from March 5 to 16,  “61 terrorists were shot dead, with 27 of their bodies removed from the red zone, while 104 were detained on suspicion of having links with the terrorists. An additional 232 were detained for being in forbidden areas.”
The “Royal Security Forces,” numbering about 200, led by Raja Muda Agbimuddin Kiram, holed up in Lahad Datu last month to assert the Kirams’ proprietary rights over  “The Land Below the Wind,” as Sabah is popularly known for.
Resource-rich Sabah, the second largest state in Malaysia, has, according to its official website, has an area of 72,500 sq. kilometers, almost thrice the size of the 26,974 sq. kilometre Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
Ulama in his letter cited Sabah’s income in 1998 at “more than US $45.98 billion.”
 Less than a million pesos in a decade
In his March 15, 2013 letter, Ulama, who has been receiving payment for the heirs from the Malaysian Embassy since 1975,  said he wrote Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak through the OIC of the Malaysian Embassy on September 17, 2012, inquiring if Malaysia is still paying the “Annual Customary Payment Rental” to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu because he had not received payment after 2010.
“If the answer is yes, to whom did Malaysia tender the payment? Is the person (to) whom payment (was) made, cloth(ed) with authority?” Ulama asked.
Ulama attached several annexes to his letter, including copies of the letters and cheques from sent to him by the Embassy of Malaysia in Philippines from 2001 to 2010, totalling less than  million pesos for 10 years:  P724,845.04.
The cheques from the Malaysian Embassy were in Philippine pesos, apparently based on the prevailing exchange rate and the Embassy’s accompanying letters indicated these were for “payment of ‘cession money’ to heirs of Sultan of Sulu for the year….”
Ulama’s letter showed only two columns: the year and amount paid. MindaNews added a third column to indicate the date the payments were made.  As can be gleaned from the third column, there is no fixed date for the payment of what the Malaysian Embassy refers to as “cession money.”
Year                Amount                      Date paid
2001                P68,888.44                  March 6, 2002
2002                P73,940.77                  April 16, 2003
2003                P77,442.36                  March 18, 2004
2004                P78,212.62                  Oct. 5, 2005
2005                P72,000.11                  Oct. 9, 2006
2006                P70,444.06                  July 5, 2007
2007                P71,242.30                  July 16, 2009
2008                P69,504.55                  Feb. 24, 2009
2009                P69,770.81                  May 7, 2009
2010                P73,399.02                  June 22, 2010
No “cession money” was paid in 2008 for the year 2007. But three payments were made in 2009: for 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Payment for 2008 was made on February 24, 2009;  for 2009 on May 7, 2009 and the late payment for 2007 was paid only on July 16, 2009.
Ulama said Malaysia “has defaulted in its payment for 2011, 2012 and 2013.”
$749 million
Ulama said that through the years, he had written to the Prime Minister of Malaysia through the Malaysian Embassy in the Philipines and the Philippine President through the Department of Foreign Affairs “countless times to increase the Annual Customary payment rentals to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu” but received no answer except during the time of President Joseph Estrada.
On April 16, 1999, then  Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo L. Siazon, Jr. wrote a memorandum for Executive Secretary Ronald Zamora on the “request of the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu” for the Philippine government to “submit their request to the Malaysian government… for an incremental increase in the ‘cession monies’ or annual rental paid by the Malaysian Government to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu in the amount of US $749 million covering from 1962 and taking into account the money/land values and improvement of Sabah.”
Siazon said that upon payment of the full amount, “the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu are willing to waive their proprietary rights over Sabah (North Borneo).”
“Unique”
Siazon referred to the Philippines’ claim over Sabah as “unique” in that it has two distinct and separate aspects – the proprietary rights of the Sultanate of Sulu as represented by the heirs and the Philippines’ sovereignty right which was ceded by the Sultanate of Sulu through the Sultan of Sulu in favor of the Philippine government in 1962.
He noted that under the principle of parens patriae, the Philippine government should help the heirs in pursuing their proprietary claims. “The question, however, is whether Malaysia would be willing to pay the amount demanded by the heirs as full settlement of their claim without any condition. Chances are Malaysia would not be agreeable to a full settlement unless the Philippines drops its sovereign claim to Sabah,” Siazon wrote.
Siazon recommended that the Estrada administration reconstitutes the Legislative-Executive Advisory Council on Sabah “in view of the last election and empower it to deliberate on the request of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and its consequent effect on the sovereignty claim of the Philippines over Sabah, the issue of multiple claimants to the title of  ‘heir of the Sultan of Sulu,’ as well as the over-all bilateral relations between the Philippines and Malaysia.
EO 46 was issued by President Ramos on January 11, 1993, days before making his first state visit to Malaysia.
The Council was to be composed of eight representatives from the Executive Branch to be designated by the President, eight members of the Senate including a member of the minority party, to be designated by the Senate President and eight members of the House of Representatives including a member of the minority party, to be designated by the Speaker of the House.
Under the EO, the Council is to “serve as an advisory body to the President with respect to the Philippine claim on Sabah” and shall “formulate and recommend alternative modes of pursuing the Sabah claim in the appropriate international and regional fora; advise the President on the manner in which the Philippine claim on Sabah may be successfully pursued taking into consideration the requirements of regional harmony and cooperation;  and advise the President on the attendant complications and ramifications regarding the Sabah issue.”
President Joseph Estrada issued EO 117 reconstituting the Council on July 5, 1999  with the same number of members and the same functions but added a feature to the third function: “advise the President on the attendant complications and ramifications as well as other issues related to the Sabah claim, including the request of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu for an increase in cession monies.”
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, whose administration got Malaysia to facilitate the peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front issued EO 121 on September  6, 2002 but reduced the number of members to five each for the executive, the Senate and the House and added three seats for private sector representation.
Arroyo also summed up the Council’s function in only one sentence: “The Council shall serve as an advisory body to the President with respect to the broad range of issues concerning Sabah.”
The Aquino administration has yet to issue an EO on the BELACS.
On February 21, he announced the creation of a study group to review the country’s options on Sabah.
“I am not an expert. I have tasked the experts to study all of this and to find out precisely all of our standings. Where do we stand? And from where we stand where do we move forward?”  Aquino said in an interview in Iloilo.  (Carolyn O. Arguillas/MindaNews)

Sunday 17 March 2013

patents


via RSS TECHRADAR: ALL LATEST FEEDS 10 February 2013

In Depth: The world of patents explained: how they affect what you buy

Shashank Sharma

The world of men is broken. They file and get patents for unimaginably trivial things in the name of driving innovation. The time of the Elves is ending. Or so we imagine Lord Elrond might react to the way things are now.

The recent billion-dollar Apple vs Samsung suit was a to and fro farce. It's not easy to understand the absurdity of some of the patents that have been granted to tech compa‐nies in recent times, not when we're constant‐ly being told that the point of patents is to drive innovation.

To most mere mortals, patents may seem as strange as Elvish spells, and they are mostly written as such, but this guide will help you to decipher the complexities of patent law. We'll also discuss how the patent laws in the EU dif‐fer from those in the US.

We won't go fully into the history of patents and trace their origins in 15th-century Italy and England, for that's not what we're here to discuss. Instead, let's focus on how patents were introduced to the European Union.

While this may seem irrelevant, it's important to understand how the different EU nations, and indeed the rest of the world, treat patents.

It all started in Europe Our story starts in 1973, when Belgium, West Germany, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, and the UK agreed to a multilat‐eral treaty called the European Patent Con‐vention (EPC), to form a unified patent system in Europe. The EPC eventually led to the for‐mation of the European Patents Office (EPO).

Patents in Europe can be obtained on a national level, or via the EPO. EPC and the EU, however, are not synonymous, as some EPC states, such as Croatia, Iceland, Turkey, etc, are not part of the EU. So, a patentee can file an application for a patent under the preva‐lent patent laws of the country, or under the EPO, if the country is one of the EPC states. As a result, the European Patent granted under the EPC, despite the name, is still only enforce‐able nationally, or under the specified mem‐ber states of the EPC as specified in the appli‐cation, and not the entire EU.

So, if a patent is granted under the EPC it is enforceable only in the EPC states as specified by the applicant in his or her patent applica‐tion. There is no provision as yet for an EU-wide patent.

Understanding patents

Patents involve the granting of exclusive rights by a state to the inventor for a specific period of time. In return for these exclusive rights, the patentee agrees to a public disclo‐sure of the invention. The exclusive right refers to the right to exclude all others from using, making, selling or distributing the patented invention without prior permission.

The exact process of filing or granting of a patent, the term for which it's granted and the extent of the exclusive rights depends on the patent and other national laws, and can thus vary from country to country.

Before a patent is granted, each application is subjected to the test of patentability. That is, the invention must satisfy a number of crite‐ria before it is deemed patentable. At the very least, the invention must be new and original and non-obvious, and the subject matter must be patentable.

The patent laws of various countries explicitly provide subject matters which cannot be patented. For example, the EPC considers dis‐coveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods not to be inventions, and so these can't be patented.

'Non-obvious' is a term often used in US patent law. The equivalent term in European patent law is 'inventive step'. The idea is to ensure that patents are not granted for obvi‐ous and natural use of the design. So, a saw will not be granted a patent for use in cutting wood. But if someone were to use a saw, with some modifications, to create swimwear for deep sea exploration, that is a non-obvious invention, or an invention involving 'inven‐tive step', and so it will be afforded protection under patent law.

'Novelty' is another requirement for patentability. This is where the often-heard term 'prior art' comes in. If an invention has been disclosed to the public, prior to the filing of the patent application, this is proof that the invention is not new or original. Such inven‐tions are not granted protection. All publica‐tions amount to disclosure, so prior art search involves only proof of publication of the invention prior to the filing of the patent.

A patent can be enforced against anyone who uses the patented technology, regardless of whether or not there is any wilful infringe‐ment or copying of the patented technology. Independent development of an infringing device is not a recognised defence.

The length of a patent A patent in the UK is granted for 20 years, so long as one pays the renewal fees each year. A period of 18-20 years is standard for almost all countries, depending on when the time period starts - date of filing for the patent, or date of grant of the patent.

Patentability requirements are nearly uni‐form across Europe, so if something is unpatentable in the UK because of the subject matter, it most likely will be unpatentable in other European countries.

Let's quickly discuss utility and design patents, which are at the heart of Apple's suit against Samsung. All patents that cover inven‐tions that produce some useful result are known as utility patents. When you hear the term patent, what is usually being referred to is a utility patent, as utility patents cover the most common categories of innovation.

To qualify for a utility patent, the invention must be covered by one of the following cate‐gories of subject matters: machines, compris‐ing moving parts manufactured objects com‐position of matter, such as chemical com‐pounds and pharmaceutical drugs processes which describe a stepwise method (this covers software).

Just about everything that is invented by an application of the mind can be granted protec‐tion as a utility patent, the only criteria being that it must produce some useful result. The patent application for a utility patent must include a detailed description of how the invention was created, along with drawings.

What do patents actually cover? Design patents cover strictly unique ornamen‐tal design of an article or object. The unique‐ness of the shape or design must be purely for aesthetic reasons. If the shape is for aesthetic and also functional purpose, then it's consid‐ered a utility patent. If the novel feature is incorporated solely for the purpose of orna‐mentation and its removal doesn't impair the functioning of the device, it's a design patent.

Design patents refer to shape or design that enhances the aesthetic appeal of an object. At the core of the Apple suit against Samsung are the design patents it holds in regards to the iPhone and iPad.

Under UK laws, you won't find any mention of the term design patents. The equivalent term in the UK is 'registered design'. While there isn't any symbol to denote a registered patent, as there is for copyright and trademark, the term 'registered design' is used if the shape or design of an object is registered in the UK.

The purpose of 'trade dress' is to help one cre‐ate a unique identity that helps the object stand apart from other similar objects. You should be able, by looking at an object, to immediately identify it, without necessarily reading the label. Thus, any combination of colour, font, packaging and labelling that helps one immediately recognise the source of the object qualifies as trade dress.

In most jurisdictions, trade dress is consid‐ered part of the trademark laws, as the pur‐pose of both is to create recognition and help customers easily identify the source of the product.

US and EU patents Patents are territorial in nature, effected under the national laws of the country, but there is a growing focus towards conformity of the patent laws across different countries.

The TRIPs Agreement, administered by the World Trade Organisation, describes the mini‐mum standard for many different forms of intellectual properties. It requires that mem‐ber nations of the WTO enact uniform laws for copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc, and provides for remedies, enforcement and dis‐pute resolution procedures.

Membership of the WTO now requires a strict implementation of the intellectual property laws, as per the TRIPS agreement. Despite this, there are a few fundamental differences between the patent laws of some countries, eg, the US and EU states.

The biggest difference is 'first-to-file' versus 'first-to-invent'. In the EU, the filing date is most important, as the person who files for the patent first is awarded the patent, even if the second applicant was the first to invent. On the other hand, the first party to invent is awarded the patent in the US, irrespective of the filing date.

In this, the US stands in contrast to almost all other countries. The patent, in case of several applications for the same invention, is award‐ed to the party that can prove decisively it invented it first.

Another difference between the EU and US is in regard to the publication of the invention. In the UK, if the invention is publicly available in any form before the filing of the patent application, the patent is not granted. The publication in this case includes articles in a magazine or newspaper, a lecture about the invention, sharing the invention with an investor without first signing a non-disclosure agreement, etc. To constitute publication, it is irrelevant who makes the invention publicly available: the inventor, one of the inventors or an independent third party.

In contrast, inventors in the US have a grace period of one year from the date of publica‐tion to file for a patent. The US also provides for the granting of provisional patents. An inventor can file for a patent before the invention is production-ready, just to be able to prove a prior filing date.

The provisional patent doesn't automatically mature into a regular patent. For that, the inventor has a period of one year, within which to file for a proper non-provisional patent.

Finally, software patents are not granted in the EU, unless a technical problem is solved. In the US, however, patent protection is grant‐ed to all software.

A registered patent grants the inventor the right to exclude all others from making, sell‐ing, using and distributing the subject matter covered by the patent. The exact nature of what is covered by the patent is described as 'claims'. Each patent application thus includes claims which define the exact scope of the patent, and a single patent can have many claims.

Excluding others from selling products A patent claim shows that the owner has the right to exclude others from using, selling or making the things that are described by the claims. Claims are a relatively new addition to patent laws, especially in European countries, where there was no mention of claims in patent applications until the mid 20th Centu‐ry.

In contrast, the enactment of the Patents Act of 1836 made claims a strict requirement for all patent applications in the US. A typical US patent application lists all the claims at the end of the application. For example, Apple's 7,469,381 utility patent has 20 claims, and Samsung was found to infringe claim 19, which states: "A device comprising; a touch screen display; one or more processors; mem‐ory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the mem‐ory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors..."

We've included only a brief portion of claim 19. While claims comprise a single sentence, it's not uncommon to find claims that are spread over half a page, or more. To make reading them easier, such lengthy claims are often written in outline form.

Design patents have only a single claim. As the design is described by way of drawings in the patent application, the claim for a design patent usually reads "we claim the design as shown," or some variation thereof. The claim for Apple's '889 design patent, which describes an electronic device, states: "We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."

The patents are referred to by the last three digits, so patent '889 is, in fact, the USD504889 patent.

The root of Apple Vs Samsung

Since 2011, Apple has filed dozens of suits against Samsung and other device manufac‐turers, such as HTC, alleging infringements of its patents and trademarks, among other things. Samsung, in turn, countersued Apple, and both have since won decisions in their favour in different countries.

In its first complaint in the US, Apple alleged that Samsung had infringed on a number of its utility and design patents and various trademarks:

"Samsung's Galaxy family of mobile products, introduced in 2010, is exemplary. The copying is so pervasive, that the Samsung Galaxy products appear to be actual Apple products -with the same rectangular shape with round‐ed corners, silver edging, a flat surface face with substantial top and bottom black bor‐ders, gently curving edges on the back, and a display of colourful square icons with round‐ed corners. When a Samsung Galaxy phone is used in public, there can be little doubt that it would be viewed as an Apple product based upon the design alone."

The infringement in the above quoted para‐graph refers to various 'trade dress' elements that Apple had registered in regards to the iPhone: "U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983 is for the overall design of the product, including the rectangular shape, the rounded corners, the silver edges, the black face, and the dis‐play of sixteen colourful icons.

"U.S. Registration No. 3,457,218 is for the con‐figuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded cor‐ners.

"U.S. Registration No. 3,475,327 is for a rectan‐gular handheld mobile digital electronic device with a gray rectangular portion in the center, a black band above and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners, and a silver outer border and side. "

The original complaint, despite alleging that Samsung had infringed seven utility and three design patents, didn't include the complete list of infringed patents. Patent '889, for instance, which describes the design of the iPad, was included in the final verdict form. The jury returned with a verdict in favour of Apple, awarding it more than $2 billion in damages, declaring Samsung had wilfully infringed on a number of Apple's patents, and registered trade dress.

The fact that the jury delivered the verdict after just three days of deliberation seems monumental when you consider the verdict form spanned 20 pages and covered many dif‐ferent areas of law - patent, trademark, trade dress, etc. The 20 pages of the verdict form included several tables for each of the infring‐ing devices, with more than 500 YES/NO ques‐tions in all.

What's more, District Judge Lucy Koh provid‐ed the jury with more than 100 pages of instructions, detailing what was expected of the jurors, what constituted evidence, what was proof, the patents in question and many other things - which highlights the magnitude of care and responsibility that was expected from the jury.

The jury was required to decide uniformly on all the questions, and many lawyers and other legal experts have since declared the near impossibility of reaching a uniform decision on the 500 questions in a matter of a few days, while legitimately discussing the entirety of the case - the evidence, the arguments and defences.

Fearing that the jury might make mistakes on the verdict form, Samsung had filed a motion for time to study the verdict as turned in by the jury to ensure there weren't any glaring mistakes in it. The Judge saw sense in this request and granted it.

As it turned out, the jury did indeed goof up, awarding $2 million to Apple for inducement by a device it concluded didn't infringe on Apple's patents. The jury was asked to redo the maths and deliberate again on these issues.

The jury members, including the foreman, have since given several interviews, at times contradicting each other, and constantly pro‐viding evidence that might help Samsung get the decision overturned. For instance, instruc‐tion number 35 in the mammoth 109-page instruction set reads:

"The amount of those damages must be ade‐quate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the finan‐cial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a rea‐sonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compen‐sate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer."

Despite this, the foreman has since been quot‐ed as saying: "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," and: "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

This blatant deviation from the judge's instruction is just one of the reasons why Samsung is seeking a fresh trial.

The proxy war against Google Apple's tactic of going after manufacturers that create and sell devices powered by Android, the Google product Apple contends violates many of its patent, has been termed as a proxy war against Google. In fact, Steve Jobs believed firmly that Android was a stolen product, which copied blatantly the innova‐tions made by Apple.

So why is Apple suing Samsung repeatedly instead of going after Google? Here are a few facts to set the record straight:

Google freely licenses Android to device man‐ufacturers and generates revenue through its advertising model. The device manufacturers, such as Samsung, make money by selling Android-powered devices. In its suits against the device manufacturers, Apple has claimed loss of revenues due to their competing devices. However, in this case, contrary to Apple's original claim of more than $2 billion, the jury awarded only $1 billion in damages.

Another aspect of the case is that Apple had sought injunctions against various Samsung products which it contends infringe upon Apple's registered patents. This leads us to the second reason for the proxy war. Once a ver‐dict is announced in favour of Apple, it can get the International Trade Commission to halt permanently the sales of infringing prod‐ucts in the US.

Since the infringing products run on Android, Apple can effectively bar the sale of Android products in the US! Or so Apple hopes. With Samsung seeking a fresh trial, we're far from such an outcome. And it probably won't ever happen.

Shashank Sharma

View Original Article View Original Article